linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] ASoC: codecs: Add WCD939x Soundwire slave driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ee3baf94-4158-4440-8d89-de39fe0aa2f3@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:09:29 +0100
From:   Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ASoC: codecs: Add WCD939x Soundwire slave driver

Hi,

On 23/11/2023 18:43, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:49:14PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> Add Soundwire Slave driver for the WCD9390/WCD9395 Audio Codec.
> 
>> The WCD9390/WCD9395 Soundwire Slaves will be used by the
> 
> Please avoid using outdated terminology, "device" is probably a good
> alternative here.  There are some usages in APIs that need to be updated
> but still, good to avoid where possible.

Sure, I simply kept the current Soundwire kernel terminologies,
I'll change it to Device.

> 
>> +static struct wcd939x_sdw_ch_info wcd939x_sdw_tx_ch_info[] = {
>> +	WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC1, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(0)),
>> +	WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC2, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(1)),
>> +	WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC3, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(2)),
>> +	WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC4, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(3)),
>> +	// TOFIX support ADC3/4 & DMIC0/1 on port 2
>> +	//WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC3, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(0)),
>> +	//WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC4, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(1)),
>> +	//WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_DMIC0, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(2)),
>> +	//WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_DMIC1, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(3)),
> 
> Why are these commented out?

Future feature support, will remove and add those on my internal TODO list...

> 
>> +static int wcd9390_interrupt_callback(struct sdw_slave *slave,
>> +				      struct sdw_slave_intr_status *status)
>> +{
>> +	struct wcd939x_sdw_priv *wcd = dev_get_drvdata(&slave->dev);
>> +	struct irq_domain *slave_irq = wcd->slave_irq;
>> +	u32 sts1, sts2, sts3;
>> +
>> +	do {
>> +		handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(slave_irq, 0));
>> +		regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_0, &sts1);
>> +		regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_1, &sts2);
>> +		regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_2, &sts3);
>> +
>> +	} while (sts1 || sts2 || sts3);
>> +
>> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +}
> 
> We do this in the other Qualcomm drivers but it doesn't seem ideal to
> just ignore the interrupts.

It seems we simply ignore IRQs that are not mapped in the regmap_irq,
what would be the ideal way to handle this ?

> 
>> +static int wcd939x_sdw_component_bind(struct device *dev, struct device *master,
>> +				      void *data)
>> +{
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void wcd939x_sdw_component_unbind(struct device *dev,
>> +					 struct device *master, void *data)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct component_ops wcd939x_sdw_component_ops = {
>> +	.bind = wcd939x_sdw_component_bind,
>> +	.unbind = wcd939x_sdw_component_unbind,
>> +};
> 
> Do these need to be provided if they can legitimately be empty?

AFAIK yes, component code will crash if those are not defined.
I'll add a comment explaining whey they are no-op.

Thanks,
Neil